A Humanities Near-Death Experience: Administrative Mismeasure in the California State University (CSU) System

Sept. 23, 2009. Mock funeral for the California Higher Education Master Plan, staged for the CSU Board of Trustee’s meeting at the CSU Administration Building, Golden Shores, Long Beach, CA. Photo by Allen Schaben.

The herky-jerky  pattern of CSU administrative activism has intensified since 2008.  It appears the  administrative intent behind such activism is to guide an often under-informed Board of Trustees on a path of curriculum reform  and unit reduction over which it actually has no legal or moral jurisdiction. This “activism”  struck again in September as campuses were just settling in to the new academic year. 

  This time it came in the disclosure that the CSU Board of Trustees would be discussing the elimination of  a system-wide general education (GE) requirement at its next  meeting: nine units of upper division capstone GE courses  would be eliminated in Fall 2013. This agenda  item appeared without any prior consultation with the CSU’s Academic Senate (ASCSU).   In its quest to graduate students as rapidly as possible through reducing the unit requirement for graduation, the CSU administration failed to understand the structural harm this sudden 9-unit elimination would impose on small humanities programs, such as foreign languages, ethnic studies programs, philosophy and religious studies, which rely on these large GE courses to support their smaller programs.  Nor did it seem to comprehend the significance of general education for the CSU’s “highly valued degree” so touted in this system.

 The shock of this proposal and its implications for the humanities in the CSU created immediate panic  across the 23-campus system.  Our activist ASCSU moved rapidly to oppose this plan and succeeded in having the offending item removed from the Board of Trustee’s agenda.  This is not a small victory for faculty governance in the CSU.   This success is especially important in the context of several tough years of defeat for faculty oversight of the curriculum as the CSU Board of Trustees eliminated the American Institutions requirement by rewriting the state’s education code (Title V)  re  SB 1440 (Student Transfer Achievement Reform Act, 2010) and ignored faculty expertise and objections to  a new and expensive statewide remediation program (Mandatory Early Start).

Below are the comments prepared by the Executive Committee of the ASCSU  in response to this proposal to eliminate the upper division GE requirement.  It  also mentions  resolutions on Propositions. 30 and 32.  Prop. 30,    Governor Brown’s budget initiative, will implement a $250 mil trigger cut to the CSU if it fails to pass in the November 6 election.  Prop. 32  is a union-busting measure, heavily funded by the Koch Brothers and Karl Rove’s SuperPac.   teri yamada

 

Comments to the CSU Board of Trustees

September 19, 2012

ASCSU Chair Diana Guerin

A few weeks ago, I had hoped to be sharing a resolution from the Academic Senate recognizing the faculty honored as the outstanding professors at the campuses of the CSU.  Unfortunately, as I will report in a moment, an intervening event prevented that resolution from being developed.

I can report to you that last week the Academic Senate passed resolutions on Prop 30, Prop 32, and your agenda item pertaining to the potential budget cut should Prop 30 fail. These have been forwarded to you.

In discussing with the Academic Senate leadership the topics to cover in today’s report to the Board, immediate past chair Jim Postma suggested talking about the workings of the CSU as an airline. Please bear with me.

If the CSU were an airline, let’s imagine together the fleet of planes.  In my mind I see jumbo jets, gleaming white with black trim, and big red letters proudly proclaiming CSU on the fuselage and tail.

In CSU Airlines, the Trustees are like the Board of Directors.  You oversee the activities of the organization, including establishing broad policies and objectives, appointing executives, and monitoring human and financial resources.

Next we have the campus presidents, who are CEOs in charge of overseeing the day-to-day operations at various hubs. They ensure that operations are in line with the policies and objectives set by the Board.

Who are the passengers on CSU Airlines?  They are the students.  In 2012, CSU had over 425,000 students seeking passage to their intended destinations.

These student-passengers are flown to their destinations by the pilots of CSU Airlines, the faculty. In 2011, CSU Airlines had about 10,000 full-time pilots and 6,000 pilots on associated commuter airlines, our lecturer faculty. The pilots are hired because of their specialized knowledge and expertise in flying the jets. It is their responsibility to deliver the passengers safely to their intended destinations.

Of course, many other employees are critical to keeping our airliners flying on schedule—mechanics, flight attendants, ticket agents, baggage handlers, and so forth, and these are analogous to the various staff and administrators on the campuses.

Everyone in CSU Airlines has an important role, and the smooth operation of the airline is dependent upon the employees performing their clearly designated duties and responsibilities.

So, back to reality.

According to the Board of Trustees Report on Governance, Collegiality, and Responsibility in the CSU adopted in 1985, “Collegial governance assigns primary responsibility to the faculty for the educational functions of the institution…” This includes curriculum and methods of teaching. Due to the faculty’s knowledge of the subject matter and pedagogic expertise, this makes good sense.

Not only is the authority of the faculty over the curriculum delineated in your own policy, but it is set forth in law.  Faculty authority is also recognized in documents guiding the profession, such as the American Association of University Professors Statement on Government of Colleges and Universities, which has been commended by the American Council on Education and the Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges.

Thus, faculty authority over the curriculum is well established.

Notwithstanding these dictums, we on the Academic Senate were stunned to find item 3 on your Educational Policies Committee agenda when it was posted to the web on Friday, September 7th, because we received official notice just a few moments earlier in an email stamped 3:49 pm.

In our hypothetical CSU Airlines, we view this as the equivalent of someone bringing a bomb on board our plane.

We were stunned that our security procedures had failed us.

We were stunned because we met twice over the summer on June 1st and August 15th with Academic Affairs leadership for the purpose of jointly establishing security measures to prevent bombs on board our planes.

We were stunned because we met with Academic Affairs leadership at the Chancellor’s Office on August 15th and had what we believed to be a collegial meeting to discuss the agenda item specified as “new and continuing CSU initiatives relevant to ASCSU.”

We were stunned to realize that this item eviscerating general education was apparently known to Academic Affairs at the time of our meeting on August 15th yet it did not appear on any of the lists shared with us nor was it mentioned during our two hour meeting.

On August 23rd one of the senators contacted me, to tell me that a decision had been made to eliminate upper division general education requirements. I assured him I would check on it and immediately sent an inquiry via email, to which there was no reply.  I followed up a few days later, again receiving no reply. I checked with the chair of the Chancellor’s General Education Advisory Committee, who indicated no knowledge of such a proposal, in no uncertain terms. In response to my subsequent phone call here at the Chancellor’s Office, I was told the administrator was working on a project and unable to respond. Hence, I officially learned of agenda item 3 only shortly before it was announced on your agenda.

After intense discussion during the past week, the Academic Senate was provided an opportunity to review the substitute agenda item a few hours before we adjourned last Friday. We note that the item suggests that faculty agree with the proposal.  On the contrary, we were not able to review the proposal with care; it came to us much like a hijacker’s note rather than a request for review or assistance.

Over the past few years, the Academic Senate has expressed its concern that the CSU has undertaken many curriculum-related initiatives which began at the system-wide level without appropriate consultation with faculty.  This latest example is perhaps the most egregious and has not only undermined the work of our Executive Committee, the Academic Senate, and the trust of the faculty, but also made further progress on SB 1440 transfer degrees more challenging to achieve and led to unnecessary upset on the campuses at the start of what is to be another very trying year.

The Academic Senate Executive Committee was committed to establishing procedures to work proactively with administration to identify issues of mutual concern in the shared governance process envisioned in Board policy, enshrined in the law, and promulgated in the standards of the profession.

The original agenda item proposing to eliminate upper division general education and reduce lower division GE was developed without any faculty consultation. The faculty consultation on the substitute agenda item is analogous to the actions the pilot and crew would take to get the bomb off the plane upon reading the hijacker’s demands.

It is certainly true that our airline wants to have on-time departures and arrivals. It is also undeniably true that when flying from Los Angeles to Chicago, it would be foolhardy to land in Des Moines rather than Chicago simply because the scheduled arrival time is reached. The goal is and should be to travel to the ticketed destination, not to fly the plane for a specified period of time. In other words, faculty agree with and seek to further the goal of students graduating within four years. However, that four-year mark should not be more important than the quality and completeness of the education our students receive. Some journeys take longer than others. Some journeys require more fuel than others.

Pilots are responsible for ensuring that there is sufficient fuel onboard, including a safety factor [that is, more fuel than is strictly needed]. That fuel amount is affected by the size of the jet, weight of the passengers and cargo, headwinds, and so forth. Quite clearly, the pilots doing the calculation for fuel needs are better enabled to make those decisions than the CEOs of the airline.  If nothing else, they are aware of the passengers, baggage and weather conditions for each flight. Teaching faculty on our campuses know our students best, and understand the factors that affect students’ abilities to learn and to succeed. We need to leave sufficient latitude for our faculty to maximize student success, even if that means having a major program that is more than 120 units. Students might need to take 16 units per semester, for example, in some degree programs.

In closing, moving forward given such a breach of trust, respect, and integrity is going to be challenging.  Our September plenary was hijacked, undermining progress on the agenda items jointly discussed with Academic Affairs leadership at our August 15th meeting.

Your policy on Collegiality states that “The governing board, through its administrative officers, makes sure that there is continual consultation with appropriate faculty representatives on these matters [that is, educational functions].  Faculty recommendations are normally accepted, except in rare instances and for compelling reasons.”

We therefore formally request that Board leadership and the Chancellor insure that faculty consultation has occurred prior to items being placed on the Board agenda on matters where the faculty have primary responsibility due to their knowledge of the subject matter and pedagogic expertise, such as on curricular matters. Please ask, “Where is the Academic Senate’s advice?” or “What do the faculty say?”

If such input is lacking, we request that you refer the item to the Academic Senate without placing it on your agenda.  In this case, assuming that meaningful consultation can occur in the two months between the appearance of an item on the board’s agenda and action by the board is akin to asking the pilot to discuss next month’s flight schedule in mid-air while defusing a bomb.

The AAUP Statement on Government of Colleges and Universities states the following: “…A college or university in which all the components are aware of their interdependence, of the usefulness of communication among themselves, and of the force of joint action will enjoy increased capacity to solve educational problems.”

Your own policy recognizes the value of the process of shared governance, and recognizes the authority of faculty over the curriculum: “Collegial governance allows the academic community to work together to find the best answers to issues facing the university.  Collegial governance assigns primary responsibility to the faculty for the educational functions of the institution in accordance with basic policy as determined by the Board of Trustees.”

We ask you to be vigilant: when others who are not pilots want to take over and fly the planes our students are on, please make sure they haven’t thrown the pilots off the plane. The pilots are the ones certified to fly the planes….

(Published with permission of the ASCSU Executive Committee, Sept. 22, 2012)


Outsmarting the Matrix: Transforming the Privatization Trend in Public Higher Ed.

Outsmarting the Matrix: Transforming the Privatization Trend in Public Higher Ed

          Teri Shaffer Yamada, Prof. of Asian Studies, CSU Long Beach

Student march on the capitol — Sacramento, CA — in support of public higher education (March 4, 2012)

There is a window of opportunity for constructive change over the next six months during the build-up to the November national election.  But this change requires engaged faculty working together in innovative ways.  And it requires a new strategy eschewing a “university business as usual” mentality.  That reality is gone: there is no business as usual at the public university.

So our current moment in history demands we organize around commonalities and develop different forms of more effective action.  If we act strategically, we have an opportunity to alter the privatization momentum that threatens the survival of meaningful public education for the 99%.

We could start by unabashedly embracing and valorizing the greatness of “our values.”  We transform and enrich the lives of our students because we care (1). We live in a media culture that foregrounds violence and cruelty, where selfless concern isn’t typically newsworthy unless it is driven by anger or hyperbole.  Yet everyday kindness happens and without it we would be much diminished.  And our “story” is compelling across ideological lines simply because we base it on shared values of  “American democracy”: opportunity for all.   Framed in the context of education, it is access to quality instruction that develops an educated demos.  In turn, our students provide the citizen power to run a government and economic system that reflects the needs and talents of the 99%. That may sound quaint, but imagine the outcomes if our current Hobbesian trajectory of consolidating power remains unchecked.

So what defines this matrix?  We are now confronted with a mirror reality of the dismantling of K-12 public education.   We have been out-organized and out- financed as reflected in Steven Brills’ reportage “The Teachers’ Unions’ Last Stand” from the New York Times (May 17, 2010):

….Schnur, who runs a Manhattan-based school-reform group called New Leaders for New Schools, sits informally at the center of a network of self-styled reformers dedicated to overhauling public education in the United States. They have been building in strength and numbers over the last two decades and now seem to be planted everywhere that counts. They are working in key positions in school districts and charter-school networks, legislating in state capitals, staffing city halls and statehouses for reform-minded mayors and governors, writing papers for policy groups and dispensing grants from billion-dollar philanthropies like the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Bill Gates, along with Education Secretary Arne Duncan; Teach for America’s founder, Wendy Kopp; and the New York City schools chancellor Joel Klein could be considered the patron saints of the network.

This is the matrix: a network of well-placed and well-funded powerful individuals with shared values, who can impact state and federal agencies and legislators through influential friends or lobbyists, media and foundation access, and  sponsored think-tank publications. We have allowed this to happen: “power abhors a vacuum.”

We can begin by changing our approach.   We can shift to “motivated reasoning” as we seek to change hearts and minds (2).   And we can message our values based upon the target audience.

As we learn from the impressive successes of the for-profit education matrix, we recognize the importance of shared values.  It forms the foundational connectivity of the network of relationships required to establish a power base.   Thoughtful leadership throughout a wide network is necessary to accomplish the change we do believe in: re-democratizing public education.  Several important meetings will take place under the auspices of AAUP, NEA and CFHE over the next few months (3).    What is an effective strategy these three can develop together and communicate to the grassroots to deflect further damage to public higher ed?  Can we move quickly enough?

One possibility for promoting change is to emulate the strategy of ALEC.  We could start by developing one piece of legislation that most faculty unions could promote to their state legislators.   The California Faculty Association (CFA) worked for several years to pass a transparency bill  so that the public could have access to the financial records of the “for-profit” side of the California State University system.    CFA is currently sponsoring a bill to democratize the CSU Board of Trustees  as part of an action plan published in its recent white paper “For-Profit Higher Education & the CSU: A Cautionary Tale” .   Are other faculty unions sponsoring bills?  What is the most beneficial bill we could introduce in a range of states to protect public higher ed?  What is the most “elegant” strategic plan at the federal level?  The  “outcomes-assessment” obsessed federal Department of Education often disappoints but there may be some leverage there as well.

There are also global trends we need to consider: the ubiquitous embrace of “common core standards,” including our own Department of Education.  This trend has filtered down to the accreditation commissions in the United States.

The Lumina Foundation has funded a pilot program on “degree qualifications”  at the college level—common  outcomes for AA, BA, MA degrees across the United States— through the Western Association of Colleges and Universities (WASC).  The first set of “volunteer” institutions will be reporting in April on their progress in implementing and assessing the Lumina “degree qualification profile.”

Beyond the new trend to measure graduation and retention rates, we can be restructured internally through changed accreditation standards that demand we measure “value-added degrees” through common-core standards assessments or track the type of jobs our graduates acquire after leaving the institution.   The for-profit higher ed sector is being nudged in this direction to make it more accountable to the federal government for its voracious consumption of public funds through PELL grants and military initiatives that fund education.  Some for-profit providers can fund their entire operation through these two sources alone.  Their lobbyists insist that public higher ed be subjected to the same assessments.

Every faculty member should pay attention to new directives imposed by their institutional accreditation agency.    If the end result is a diminished capacity to offer a wide range of degrees since programs must justify their existence through proof of job placement as an outcome, we may become a different kind of vocational training institution that has lost the soul of a liberal arts education.

Be sure to track the forthcoming reports on the 2012 Bologna Ministerial Conference on the GlobalHigherEd blog.  There will be further discussion there on common international standards which would impact us nationally.

EXCERPT FROM GlobalHigherEd  The European Higher Education Area: Retrospect and Prospect (Posted: 22 Mar 2012 07:24 PM PDT)

First, the 2012 Bologna Ministerial Conference:is expected to bring together 47 European Higher Education Area ministerial delegations, the European Commission, as well as the Bologna Process consultative members and Bologna Follow-Up Group partners.  The meeting will be an opportunity to take stock of progress of the Bologna Process and set out the key policy issues for the future. The EHEA ministers will jointly adopt the Bucharest Ministerial Communiqué, committing to further the Bologna goals until 2020.

Second, The 2012 Bologna Policy Forum:organised in conjunction with the Ministerial Conference is aimed to intensify policy dialogue and cooperation with partners across the world. The theme of the third Bologna Policy forum is “Beyond the Bologna process: Creating and connecting national, regional and global higher education spaces”. The Policy forum has four sub-themes, which will be addressed during the parallel sessions, namely: “Global academic mobility: Incentives and barriers, balances and imbalances”; “Global and regional approaches to quality enhancement of Higher Education”; “Public responsibility for and of HE within national and regional context”; “The contribution of Higher Education reforms to enhancing graduate employability”. This year’s edition of the Bologna Policy Forum will be finalised with the adoption of the 2012 Bologna Policy Forum Statement.

Notes:

1) Those of us who participated in the feminist philosophy movement of the 1980s know this as the “ethics of care.”  See “Ethics of Care” in “Online Guide to Ethics and Moral Philosophy.” March 24, 2012.

2)   See Dan Kahan’s definition based upon “motivated cognition” which refers to “the unconscious tendency of individuals to fit their processing of information to conclusions that suit some end or goal” in “What Is Motivated Reasoning and How Does It Work?”  See also a great video clip with a discussion of this concept “Dan Kahan — The Great Ideological Asymmetry Debate.”  Kahan is the Elizabeth K. Dollar Professor Law and Professor of Psychology at the Yale Law School.  His research focuses on “cultural cognition” (how social and political group affiliations affect our views of contested areas of ‘reality’) and motivated reasoning.

3)   CFHE (Campaign for the Future of Higher Education) is having its Third National Gathering in Ann Arbor on May 18, 2012, hosted by the Michigan Conference AAUP. Contact CFHE.conference@gmail.com for further information. Registration is free.

References:

California Faculty Association. “For-Profit Higher Education & the CSU: A Cautionary Tale” March 19, 2012

Brills, Steve.  The Teachers’ Unions’ Last StandNew York Times.  May 17, 2010.

Kahan, Dan. “What is Motivated Reasoning and How Does it Work?”   May 4, 2011.

———. “Dan Kahan- The Great Ideological Asymmetry Debate”   February 13, 2012.

Lederman, Doug. “What’s ‘Good Enough’?”  Inside Higher Ed. April 14, 2011.

———. “What Degrees Should Mean.” Inside Higher Ed. January 25, 2011.

Lumina Foundation.  “The Degree Qualifications Profile: Defining degrees: A new direction for American higher education to be tested and developed in partnership with faculty, students, leaders and stakeholders.” 


Nov. 17 CFA Strike: “Enough is Enough!” at CSU DH

Blog report by Teri Yamada

“Enough is Enough!”  Reporting on the  CFA Nov. 17 Strike at CSU DH

The California Faculty Association, union friends, and concerned students successfully shut down two CSU campuses today with the clear message “Enough is Enough!”  The flawed management of the CSU needs some careful scrutiny as executives get bonuses and students get tuition increases.  Chancellor Reed, who professed to the media this week that no faculty would participate in  the strike actions at CSU Dominguez Hills  and CSU East Bay, was in for a big surprise today as hundreds of strikers picketed the entrances to two campuses.  This is the day after the CSU Board of Trustees voted to raise student tuition fees  again — this time 9%— even before the California legislature  cut the CSU budget.

Today’s message —Enough is enough— reflects more than anger at  Chancellor Reed’s refusal to grant a quarter percent raise out of a $4.5 billion CSU state budget.  It is anger at being called ‘greedy and irresponsible’ by executives who give themselves significant bonuses, equity increases and raises rather than support courses for students and the faculty who teach them.   It is time for CSU management to get its priorities straight.  Enough is enough!

Since becoming the head of the CSU in 1998, Chancellor Reed has overseen an increase in student tuition of over 263%.   In fact, since 1998 (adjusting for inflation) student fees have increased 106% while faculty salaries have fallen 10%.  Meanwhile, administrators have enjoyed a 23% pay increase.  One egregious example of management’s misplaced priorities is the recent $100,000 bonus given to the new San Diego State president on the same day the CSU Board of Trustees voted to increase student tuition by 12%.    In fact, the CSU spent $75 million less on faculty pay last year than in 2007 due to layoffs—while the student-faculty ratio continues to increase.

So enough is enough!  Selfish management priorities are costing Californians access to quality public higher education.  Buildings are crumbling, technology infrastructure in the classroom needs updating, faculty need support to improve their courses and to maintain their expertise, students need mentoring.  Instead, the Chancellor  uses his Executive Order power, without any state legislative oversight, to enact new and expensive programs with questionable efficacy.  Mandatory Early Start, for example, is a new program that requires all entering freshman who need remedial education courses to take a 1-unit summer course before they can ‘start’ in fall 2012.  This is an example of an absurd waste of taxpayer money.  Another new plan, CSU Online, may set up a new corporation to sell the ‘CSU brand’ to foreign students and the military, funneling needed resources away from campuses to a virtual CSU.  And the Chancellor just hired yet another administrator, this time for the new CSU Online initiative, at a time when costly experimental programs siphon money from courses that students need to graduate.

These facts and others have led members of the California Faculty Association to vote 93% in favor of going on strike. We are not going to stand for continued disrespect and erosion of our rights and the quality of the CSU.  Faculty, librarians, counselors and coaches — their knowledge and dedication to students —are the value in the CSU, not new experimental programs of dubious merit or expensive executives.    The question now is will our elected representatives in Sacramento and the good citizens of California decide to exercise some oversight over a Chancellor who has failed the CSU.


Administrative Oppositional Behavior Disorder: An Epidemic

Confession: I rarely watch T.V.  But on a recent Friday night while channel surfing, I stumbled across Jaime Oliver’s “Food Revolution” and was stunned.  The Superintendent and Board of Supervisors for the Los Angeles Unified School District ( LAUSD) have declared war on this crusader chef, who just wants to analyze the quality of the school district’s cafeteria food.  They banned Jaime from visiting any school kitchen or cafeteria in any Los Angeles public school upon penalty of arrest for trespassing, with the excuse that cafeteria food in the LAUSD is just fine.  Jaime, an impressive organizer, had secured some media coverage over his school lockout experience.  Using a radio interview, he asked parents to bring their children with samples of  cafeteria food to his kitchen studio so he could analyze its nutritional value. You can guess the results: overly processed and carbo heavy.  Undefeated, Jaime politely presented himself to the LAUSD Board of Supervisors during their public testimony period. Looking disinterested and chewing gum, some of the board members made a distinctly bad impression as he eloquently requested access to just one Los Angeles public school cafeteria.   Denied. Will they ever let him in?

In the face of an obesity epidemic (14.9%) among children in L.A. combined with more than 30% of L.A.’s children coming to school hungry, you would think that the Superintendent and his Board would leap at the opportunity for “free” consultation with an expert who knows how to improve the quality of food in a cost effective way. Their pride is apparently more important than our children’s health.

I have testified in front of the CSU Board of Trustees and Chancellor about their poorly planned policies implemented without faculty consultation. The most recent one is Mandatory Early Start.   Rarely do they look up from text messaging or email during anyone’s public testimony.  I know exactly how Jaime Oliver feels: the disbelief and despair at non-experts shunning your own knowledge as irrelevant.

We have so many administrators and “managers” now in the public education business who refuse to listen to faculty expert advice.  They dismiss the input of talented teachers with experience in the classroom; consequently, they  make bad policy decisions that impact the lives of millions of children across the country.  We have so many politicians like this with power to dismantle and privatize public education.  They simply refuse to listen.

This type of destructive policy implementation appears to have gone viral.  It is a specific managerial behavior pattern: the inability to admit that you might be wrong, to openly consider a wide range of opinions in order to solve a complex problem, to adhere to ethics, to consider evidence that may contradict one’s ideology or beliefs.  This behavior reflects a lack of empathy.  It leads to superficial, data driven, education experimentation on other people’s children. Let’s label it  “administrative oppositional behavior disorder” (AOBD).

This personality disorder, now found among politicians and education managers, fosters the implementation  of  bad policy.  It is Governor Scott Walker‘s behavior in Wisconsin, sneaking a bill to dismantle collective bargaining rights for teachers through his legislature by overriding the state constitutional process for open discussion. It appears in the form of the New York State Board of Regents and Governor Cuomo’s decision to increase the percentage of student test scores required for teacher evaluations to 40% in the face of significant, quality evidence proving that type of data misjudges teacher effectiveness.  Did they do it for Race to the Top money?  Does that make it okay?

AOBD appears in Washington DC in the form of Arnie Duncan who commissions a NCEE and OECD study — “Standing on the Shoulders of Giants: An American Agenda for Education Reform”– and then dismisses its criticism of No Child Left Behind. To dismiss constructive criticism, especially when one has asked for it,  is a weakness of character.  Yet we see this disorder everywhere, with the aim of slash-and-burn dismantling and privatization of the  country’s public education infrastructure. Some people are making off like bandits through the redistribution of public funds provided by this opportunity of privatization.  It will take our entire global village of empathetic teachers, parents, and allies working together to turn this juggernaut around.

COLLEAGUES:  PLEASE SUBMIT YOUR GUEST BLOG  FOR POSTING TO TERI.YAMADA@GMAIL.COM


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 382 other followers